Computer underground Digest Sun Jan 11, 1998 Volume 10 : Issue 02 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu) News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest CONTENTS, #10.02 (Sun, Jan 11, 1998) File 1--Urgent Action: WA state HOUSE BILL 2209 File 2--Washington HR 2209 (computer workers as "Professionals") File 3--CA anti-spam bill File 4--Fwd: America Online Files Suit Against Three Junk E-mail Firms File 5--ACM (POLICY98) Conference Announcement File 6--If Big Brother Has Been Dismembered, Are We Safe? File 7--CPSR's Year 2000 Rumors Web Site File 8--US vs Microsoft File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 21:05:37 -0800 (PST) From: "T.L. Kelly" Subject: File 1--Urgent Action: WA state HOUSE BILL 2209 ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following is a bit late, but the issue of defining computer workers as "professionals" and thus exempt from minimum wage law is sufficiently important to warrant discussion. The full text of the law follows this post)). The WSDMA, a "labor" organization, has quietly asked the Washington Dept. of Labor and Industry to strip computer professionals making over $27.63 an hour of their overtime. Furthermore, the proposed law is written in such a way as to exempt "Any employee who is a computer system analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, software developer or other similarly skilled worker" even from the minimum wage provisions of Washington state law. If approved, the law will be adopted Dec. 31, 1997, and become effective Feb. 1, 1998. The WSDMA's largest member is Microsoft, the largest employer of computer contractors in the region with an estimated 3-5,000 such employees. The company recently lost a labor case brought by a group of contract workers. It is the company's acknowledged policy to employ contract workers to avoid the cost of benefits, vacation, etc. Recent applicants have confirmed to me that Microsoft explicitly *requires* all contract workers to work "a minimum of 50-55 hours a week". The Boeing Company is also a member of the WSDMA. The WSDMA's legal move was kept secret. The "request" was not reported in the local press until the day AFTER the public comment period had ended. The author of that story has acknowledged he learned of the proposal in October, but did not cover it because he "didn't appreciate the significance". One wonders how he manages to cross the street successfully. The "public" hearing was scheduled for the Tuesday before Thanksgiving from 10 am to noon -- in Tumwater, WA, several miles south of Olympia. The vast majority of the state's contract workers live in Seattle and neighboring communities far to the north. The WSDMA's own street-level membership was not informed of the move, let alone invited to comment. It should be noted that computer professionals are already barred from labor organizing by a Cold War-era federal law. It seems the time has come to work to get that law overturned on Constitutional grounds. But first... THE PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE OVERTIME LAW HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL DEC. 19 -- NEXT FRIDAY. Management and owners have had nearly two months to comment, we have less than a week. Please make it count. Comments can be sent to Linda Merz of the Washington State Dept. of Labor and Industry at (360) 902-5403 or merl235@lni.wa.gov Please be clear, relatively brief, and most importantly courteous (even if firm). Comments of up to 10 pages may be faxed to (360) 902-5300 or snail mailed to: Greg Mowat, Program Manager Employment Standards Department of Labor and Industries P.O. Box 4-4510 Olympia, WA 98504-4510 Below is an excerpt from the proposed law, HOUSE BILL 2209. As you can see, it applies to just about anyone working in the computer and web industries. (source: http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/w128-535.htm ) (1) Any employee who is a computer system analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, software developer or other similarly skilled worker will be considered a "professional employee" and will be exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Washington Minimum Wage Act if: (i) Applying systems analysis techniques and procedures to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications for any user of such services; or (ii) Following user or system design specifications to design, develop, document, analyze, create, test or modify any computer system, application or program, including prototypes; or (iii) Designing, documenting, testing, creating or modifying computer systems, applications or programs for machine operation systems; or (iv) Any combination of the above primary duties whose performance requires the same skill level [...] RESOURCES ONLINE News Stories (both of 'em -- literally) Temporary software workers to lose OT http://www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html97/temp_120597.html Software temps gain time to fight OT changes http://www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html97/temp_121097.html Info from WA State Dept of L&I http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/over.htm http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/w128-535.htm HOUSE BILL 2209 as posted on the WA Legislature Site http://leginfo.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/house/2200-2224/2209_022697 WA Legislature Site http://leginfo.leg.wa.gov/ WSDMA http://www.wsdma.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:23:35 -0600 From: cudigest@SUN.SOCI.NIU.EDU(Computer underground Digest) Subject: File 2--Washington HR 2209 (computer workers as "Professionals") SOURCE: http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/w128-535.htm (Washington HR 2209) NEW SECTION WAC 296-128-535 Are professional computer employees exempt from the Washington Minimum Wage Act? (1) Any employee who is a computer system analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, software developer or other similarly skilled worker will be considered a "professional employee" and will be exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Washington Minimum Wage Act if: (a) Their primary duty is of one of the following: (i) Applying systems analysis techniques and procedures to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications for any user of such services; or (ii) Following user or system design specifications to design, develop, document, analyze, create, test or modify any computer system, application or program, including prototypes; or (iii) Designing, documenting, testing, creating or modifying computer systems, applications or programs for machine operation systems; or (iv) Any combination of the above primary duties whose performance requires the same skill level; and (b) Their rate of pay is at least $27.63 per hour. (2) This professional exemption only applies to highly skilled employees who: (a) Possess a high degree of theoretical knowledge and understanding of computer system analysis, programming and software engineering; and (b) Have the ability to practically apply that theoretical knowledge and understanding to highly specialized computer fields; and (c) Generally attain the necessary level of expertise and skill to qualify for an exemption through a combination of education and experience in the field; and (d) Consistently exercise discretion and judgment in the application of their special knowledge as opposed to performing purely mechanical or routine tasks; and (e) Engage in work that is predominantly intellectual and inherently varied in character as opposed to work that is routinely mental, manual, mechanical, or physical. (3) While many employees who qualify for this exemption hold a bachelor's or higher degree, no degree is required for this exemption. (4) This professional exemption does not apply to: (a) Trainees or employees in entry level positions learning to become proficient in computer systems analysis, programming and software engineering; or (b) Employees in computer systems analysis, programming and software engineering positions who have not attained a level of skill and expertise which allows them to generally work independently and without close supervision; or (c) Employees engaged in the operation of computers; or (d) Employees engaged in the manufacture, repair or maintenance of computer hardware and related equipment; or (e) Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement. [] _________________________________________________________________ This rule was adopted as written Dec. 31, 1997. It will become effective Feb. 1, 1998. See news release: Dec. 31, 1998 - State adopts rule exempting computer professional overtime pay rate To access the department's response to public comments received about the proposed rule, press here: Concise explanatory statement regarding overtime and minimum wage exemption for professional computer employees _________________________________________________________________ Labor and Industries is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer. The department complies with all federal rules and regulations and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age, disabled, disabled or Vietnam-era veteran, religion or disability as defined by applicable state and/or federal statutes or regulations. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries What's New|L&I Services| Press Releases |Training | Directory| Links Publications| Calendar| Site Index| Search L&I Home Page last revised: 01-05-1998 - 5:10 PM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 18:17:53 -0800 From: Greg Broiles Subject: File 3--CA anti-spam bill Here's the text of AB 1629, introduced in the California State Assembly yesterday: ---- BILL NUMBER: AB 1629 INTRODUCED BILL TEXT INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Miller JANUARY 5, 1998 An act to add Section 17538.45 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to advertising. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1629, as introduced, Miller. Advertising: electronic mail. Existing law prohibits a person conducting business in this state from faxing unsolicited advertising material, unless certain conditions are satisfied. This bill would also prohibit a person conducting business in the state from using a computer or other electronic device to send an unsolicited advertisement to an electronic mail address within the state unless (1) that person has a preexisting and ongoing business or personal relationship with the recipient, or absent that relationship, the recipient has previously provided express consent or permission with respect to the advertisement and (2) that person provides certain identifying information at the beginning of the advertisement. It would also authorize any person with legal standing to bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any violation of these prohibitions, or to recover civil damages, as specified, or to seek both of those remedies. It would also provide that the prevailing party in any of those actions shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees. Existing law provides for the regulation of advertising and provides that any violation of those provisions is a crime. This bill, by creating additional prohibitions with regard to advertising, would expand the scope of an existing crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 17538.45 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read: 17538.45. (a) No person conducting business in this state shall use any computer or other electronic device to send an unsolicited advertisement to an electronic mail address within the state unless each of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) That person has a preexisting and ongoing business or personal relationship with the recipient, or absent that relationship, the recipient has previously provided express consent or permission with respect to the advertisement. (2) That person clearly provides, at the beginning of the unsolicited advertisement, the date and time the message was sent, the identity of the person sending the message, and the return electronic mail address of that person. (b) (1) Notwithstanding Sections 17535 and 17536, any person who has legal standing may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for either or both of the following purposes: (A) To enjoin any violation of this section. (B) To recover civil damages in an amount equal to the actual monetary loss suffered by that person by reason of any violation, or five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation, whichever amount is greater. However, if the court finds that a violation of this section was willful or knowing, the court may, in its discretion, award up to three times the amount of those civil damages. (2) The prevailing party in any action brought under paragraph (1) shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 98 15:02 CST From: Cu Digest Subject: File 4--Fwd: America Online Files Suit Against Three Junk E-mail Firms Source - AOL News America Online Files Suit Against Three Junk E-mail Firms DULLES, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 7, 1998--America Online Inc. Tuesday filed suit against three junk e-mail firms in its continuing battle against unsolicited bulk e-mail, also known as "spam." The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and seeks an injunction to prevent the companies from continuing their practice of sending large quantities of unsolicited junk e-mail to AOL members. The suit also seeks damages from all three companies. The companies named in the suit are: IMS of Knoxville, Tenn.; Gulf Coast Marketing of Baton Rouge, La.; and TSF Marketing and TSF Industries of Riverside, Calif. This suit follows on the heels of a federal court ruling in favor of AOL in its suit against junk e-mail firm Over the Air Equipment Inc. In that case, AOL won a court order barring Over the Air Equipment from sending unsolicited e-mail to AOL members. Later, Over the Air Equipment dropped its challenge to the order barring it from spamming and agreed to pay AOL a substantial sum of money in damages. AOL's new suit builds on the precedent established in the Over the Air Equipment case. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:29:16 -0500 From: David Banisar Subject: File 5--ACM (POLICY98) Conference Announcement ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING (ACM) ANNUAL CONFERENCE * * * POLICY98 * * * "Shaping Policy in the Information Age" Washington, DC, Renaissance Hotel May 10-12, 1998 Preliminary Notice For Conference and Registration information see: http://www.acm.org/usacm/events/policy98/ The ACM Annual Conference will focus on public policy issues affecting future applications of computing. Our goal is to forge stronger links between computing professionals and policy makers. Attendees will interact with prominent leaders from academia, industry, Congress, and Executive agencies, and participate in debates on policy issues including Universal Access, Electronic Commerce, Intellectual Property, and Education Online. The conference will promote more regular engagement of computing professionals in democratic processes related to productive use of computing and information processing innovations. A blend of technical skills and policy insights are essential to cope with the inherent opportunities and dangers of any transformational technology. Continuing collaborations between computing professionals and policy makers will benefit citizens, consumers, entrepreneurs, researchers, and students. You can make a difference! May 10: Ethical and social impacts papers and panels May 11-12: Public policy panels and featured speakers All Policy98 attendees are invited to the Annual ACM Awards Banquet on Sunday evening May 10th, and a conference reception on Monday evening May 11th. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ PANEL TOPICS AND COORDINATORS =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Universal Service: Ollie Smoot What can be done to promote widespread access to the benefits of the Internet? What is the role of government and the role of the private sector in wiring schools, libraries, and medical facilities? Electronic Commerce: Jim Horning How much public policy does EComm need? What problems would inadequate, excessive, or misguided policies cause? Can compromises in areas like fair trade practices, fraud prevention, security, privacy, law enforcement, and taxation advance the interests of all stakeholders? Intellectual Property in Cyberspace: Pam Samuelson What will be the impact of the WIPO agreements on copyright in cyberspace? How should intellectual property be protected and what safeguards are necessary to protect libraries and academic institutions? Education Online: Charles N. Brownstein The Internet offers unparalleled opportunities for learning and teaching. What public policy and technical challenges must be met to realize these prospects? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRS =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Ben Shneiderman, USACM (U.S. Public Policy Committee) C. Dianne Martin, SIGCAS (ACM Special Interest Group on Computers & Society) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ PROGRAM COMMITTEE CHAIRS =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Marc Rotenberg, Public Policy Keith Miller, Ethics and Social Impacts +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ REGISTRATION INFORMATION =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ For more information, contact: policy98@acm.org or to register electronically, see: http://www.acm.org/usacm/events/policy98/reginfo.html Early registrants and ACM members receive discounts. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:32:06 -0500 From: Stephen Talbott Subject: File 6--If Big Brother Has Been Dismembered, Are We Safe? NETFUTURE Technology and Human Responsibility Source: Netfuture - Issue #61 December 1 1997 COPYRIGHT 1995 BRIDGE COMMUNICATIONS Editor: Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@oreilly.com) On the Web: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/ You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes. If Big Brother Has Been Dismembered, Are We Safe? ------------------------------------------------- In "No Place To Hide" (*Forbes*, September 22, 1997) Ann Marsh offers a useful survey of the potentials and current realities of electronic surveillance. Among the items she ticks off: * Travel information from electronic toll booths in New York, originally off limits to law enforcement agencies without a subpoena, is now routinely available for the investigation of all serious crimes. * As cars are fitted with satellite-tracking services, General Motors has already felt the need to issue a disclaimer: "We will tell the police where a vehicle is, but not just any individual. We do not want to be a national detective service." * Passive tracking devices as small as a rice grain reveal their data in the presence of a scanner (as at a toll booth or retailer's exit). They can be (and have been) implanted under the skin of humans to store and report medical data. They could equally well be used as security passes. * In a few years all cellular phone companies will be required to report the location of 911 callers. * Unmanned spy planes ("drones") can photograph the ground with twelve- inch resolution. Other drones as small as a paper plane can survey an area from just a few hundred feet up. "On the drawing board are some vehicles that can fly through an open door, perch inside a building, and quietly observe their surroundings." But Marsh also looks at the positive side: tracking lost kids and Alzheimer patients; nabbing criminals by installing tiny transmitters in cars and store merchandise, or in stacks of money given to bank robbers; automatically dialing 911 and reporting the location of car accidents; tracking salmon migrations; and using drones to sniff out airborne pollutants. Like it or not, Marsh concludes, The world is becoming smaller and smaller and ever more transparent. Your fenced-in yard won't be quite as private as it used to be. But neither will the dark alley near your bank teller machine. Tradeoff, tradeoff, tradeoff. Yes, but the notion of tradeoffs can lead us to stop thinking too soon. It's not simply a matter of looking at a particular piece of technology and saying, "Gee, it could be used this way (which is good) and it could be used that way (which is bad) -- and let's make the bad illegal." Given the complex interrelationship of all technologies, we have little choice but to seek larger and deeper patterns. Once we do that, we will not always find neatly offsetting facts on opposite sides of the balance. It is not as simple as seeing which set of facts outweighs the other. There may be *some* patterns that are reinforced by both sides of a supposed tradeoff. In particular, chip implants for tracking Alzheimer patients, while obviously helpful for some purposes, would not necessarily prove benign in the larger picture. The devices could easily encourage the continuing depersonalization of care for the elderly -- especially in a society already moving in that direction. The more easily you can electronically monitor a person, the more invisible he tends to become *as a person* -- and long-term social policy toward invisible people is rarely benign. Similarly, medical data stored on chip implants may save some lives. But as this data gets electronically transmitted from here to there for analysis, the risk is that the individual, flesh-and-blood patient in all his particularity will be replaced by the sum of his data. So the medical benefit, to the degree it entails disregard of the individual, is not unrelated to various abuses on the other side of the balance. For example, violations of data privacy become much more likely once the patient has been lost sight of. And, as I have pointed out before, the ability to nab criminals through high-tech tracking devices is occurring as part of a general trend toward the technical mediation of human relations. This in turn -- if we do not counter the trend with a strong consciousness of community -- leads to the weakening of the social matrix that is the most effective barrier to crime. So even the benefits of the tracking devices may be part of a distinctly unhealthy pattern that negates the benefits. In her article, Marsh mentions the Orwellian, dictatorial potentials of the new technologies, and sets them in the balance against the freeing potentials. But, as I argued in "Distributing Big Brother's Intelligence" (NF #59), we need to be alert to the possibilities of a "distributed tyranny" requiring no dictatorial center. Both sides of the balance in which we usually assess the issues may weigh in favor of such a tyranny. While Marsh mentions Saddam Hussein in passing, it is worth remarking that nearly all her examples of dangerous technical implementations come from the United States. It is hard to imagine that Americans will succumb to an old-style dictator in the foreseeable future. But it is quite imaginable that we will continue succumbing to the "necessities" of progress -- the very necessities that lock us in debate about what may in some cases be lose-lose tradeoffs. When hidden cameras in public places, electronic surveillance of employees, and the tracking of individual product purchases are on the increase, it is not because we are heading toward a centralized dictatorship, but rather because the entire fabric of corporate business, law enforcement, and public consumption seems to require these things. Here the immediate necessity is rooted in economics, there in personal health; here in law enforcement; there in the needs of the disabled. I am not sure to what degree we might avoid pursuing the various technical implementations that sustain the threats. Who, after all, would deny to the disabled the latest technical assist? But I *am* sure that we had better step back and take a hard look at the overall shape of the puzzle pieces slowly assembling themselves all around us. I can't help thinking of those coarsely scanned images that, from close up, yield nothing recognizable, but from a distance betray a human countenance. Let us hope that the face now taking shape in the pattern of our technologically transformed lives is not the dismembered and redistributed face of Big Brother. But if it is, our only hope for recognizing the fact is to gain some objective distance between ourselves and the "inevitable" progress of technology. (Quotations are from the online version of Marsh's article: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/97/0922/6006226a.htm.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 12:24:35 -0800 From: Susan Evoy Subject: File 7--CPSR's Year 2000 Rumors Web Site News Release CPSR Y2k Web Site Launched News Release For more information contact: Norman Kurland, chair, CPSR Y2k Working Group kurlandn@crisny.org; phone 518-439-9065 YEAR 2000 RUMORS ADDRESSED ON NEW WEB SITE There are just two years until January 1, 2000 -- two years to make sure that computers can tell that 00 means 2000 and not 1900. During these two years businesses, governments and individuals are going to be working with increasing urgency to fix the so-called Y2k problem or minimize its impact on their operations. Even as the pace of work on the problem accelerates, so too will the rumors. Already there are rumors that elevators will stop running, electrical utilities will fail, the international financial system will grind to a halt and Social Security checks will be late and incorrect. To help sort fact from fiction CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) has established a Y2k Rumor Center on its new Y2k Web site: http://www.cpsr.org/program/y2k/. The site is intended to provide guidance to small organizations that have not initiated their Y2k remediation efforts and to help everyone understand the social and economic consequences of this seemingly simple problem. CPSR is hopeful that its effort will help prevent people from panicking as they hear unsubstantiated rumors about what might happen. CPSR is a public-interest alliance of computer scientists and others concerned about the impact of computer technology on society. It works to influence decisions regarding the development and use of computers. CPSR is deeply concerned about the serious threat posed to individuals, organizations, governments, and economies by the Year 2000 computer problem, a threat that could disrupt our economic and social systems. The Y2k Working Group was formed to help promote awareness of the problem and assist in finding solutions. Its focus is on segments of society which do not have extensive resources or organized groups to speak for them. It seeks to foster a sense of urgency at all levels local, national and global, while helping the public and the media understand and prepare for the impact of the Y2k problem. The Working Group maintains the Web site as the place to go for individuals and smaller organizations seeking understanding and help with Y2k. The site includes a simple explanation of the the Y2k problem and practical suggestions on how to respond to it, including a checklist of things to do now. > -- > Susan Evoy * Deputy Director > http://www.cpsr.org/home.html > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility > P.O. Box 717 * Palo Alto * CA * 94302 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 20:47:31 EST From: MRand33609 Subject: File 8--US vs Microsoft Is Microsoft Evil? How is it that in the United States -- the home of such men as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers -- could that question even be reasonably postulated? Bill Gates the most productive man in the United States, is actually being persecuted for being productive . . . . for running the largest computer-software company in the world. To me, this issue should not even be discussed between rational people. It would be like debating over the answer to a simple arithmetic problem or the shape the Earth. But this is an issue; an issue that has been avoided for the last century in this country. Think; if it were evil to create better products at lower prices, then would that imply that building the worst products at outrageous prices is good. I once thought that Ayn Rand was exaggerating when she claimed that people held the phrase, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs as a moral ideal. But once again the Ralph Nadar and Janet Reno are proving that they do. Imagine penalizing Bill Gates 1 million dollars a day for running a good business. What' next? Failing Johnny because he got all the answers right on his test, while giving Steve a full ride to Harvard because he never went to class. To learn more about the specifics of the Justice Department' vendetta against Mr. Gates and Microsoft visit the following website; http://www.capitalism.org/microsoft ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators Subject: File 9--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997) Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically. CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS. The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU (NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line) Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet); CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540 UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/ ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/ aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/ world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/ COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #10.02 ************************************